From: kurkku@hassuserveri.fi   
      
   "Anton"  kirjoitti   
   viestissä:g8tlbj$2i9$1@registered.motzarella.org...   
   > James A. Donald kirjoitti:   
   >> James A. Donald:   
   >>>>>> The Hungarians tried on stuff that had previously   
   >>>>>> led to war. They took risk of war.  When war did   
   >>>>>> not eventuate, everyone joined in.   
   >>   
   >> Anton   
   >>>>> Tell us something we don't know.   
   >>   
   >> James A. Donald :   
   >>>> To spell it out for you.  The risk of war was less   
   >>>> because the Soviets had already suffered some   
   >>>> military defeats, and the possibility of winning the   
   >>>> war, should war ensue, was greater.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Thus the military defeats the Soviets suffered   
   >>>> encouraged the Hungarians to defy the Soviets.   
   >>   
   >> Anton   
   >>> Again you are talking without knowing the facts:   
   >>> Hungary happened in *1956*, and that particular   
   >>> rebellion was crushed.   
   >   
   >> In May 1988, immediately after the Soviet withdrawal   
   >> from Afghanistan began, Hungary had another go at doing   
   >> the things it tried in 1956 - they took a big risk of   
   >> war, but this time was not crushed.   
   >   
   >> They reason they were willing to take this risk is that   
   >> they judged that war was less likely, and if war ensued,   
   >> victory more feasible.  They took this gamble within   
   >> days of the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan   
   >> beginning.  The connection is direct and obvious.   
   >   
   > Pure speculation. The Soviets still had enough muscle to hit the   
   > civilians in eastern europe hard - if they had wanted to. I'd say the   
   > effect of pulling out was the opposite: pulling out from Afghanistan   
   > meant that they had battle exeprienced forces they could have sent to   
   > europe to quell those uprisings.   
   >   
   > The most logial explanation why the Soviet system and its satellites   
   > fell is that enough people started disbelieving - including the soldiers   
   > and the leadership. Soldiers were reluctant to shoot unarmed civilians.   
   > Leaders were reluctant to give soldiers orders to shoot unarmed civilians.   
   >   
   > When radical ideologists have long enough monopoly to power in a country   
   > more and more "normal" non-radical elements join the power structure and   
   > its institutions for pragmatic reasons. In other words: socialism fell   
   > from within, because non-socialists had no alternative party to join and   
   > no other options for career paths than those that the socialist system   
   > offered. Non-socialists of course have little motive to preserve the   
   > system to all costs.   
   >   
   > Also: as the new generation did not experience the revolution and the   
   > civil war in Russia, Stalin's purges and mass doprtations, the WWII, the   
   > system had a younger generation that did not see violance being the   
   > means of settling all political disputes. Hence people at both ends of   
   > the gun had reasons to seriously believe in a possible outcome that did   
   > not include any shooting of humans.   
   >   
   > --   
   > Anton   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)